I was shocked after reading this Amnesty International article. I have nothing but the utmost respect for people in law enforcement and always will. But apparently some are using Tasers like a toy. I was most shocked upon reading Tasers cause “profound” pain and some police are now using it as a routine law enforcement tool–like billy clubs and handcuffs!
Are police misusing this powerful tool? And if so, what is the solution to this problem? Thank you in advance to all who reply 
Well unforunately the article was very long so I only read the first few pages, however I didn’t see much new information there other than some new opinions.
Nobody likes to be shocked and knocked down, however I suppose the question is what is the alternative. Basically is you consider that the most likely scenerio without a taser is going to be gunfire or more severe brute force to subdue violent/unco-operative criminals. It really is only primarily used in these types of situations and not simply to zap someone that is standing still. It is certainly important to teach proper use to avoid problems, but overall I would have to say that it is the best alternative to something worse.
It would certainly be reasonable and a good idea to pass a law that prohibits the use of tasers on children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities
The very purpose of using a Taser is to cause extreme pain and subdue someone. That is its purpose. It is intended to be a nonlethal alternative to deadly force. It is still a weapon, just like a billy club, which is also supposed to be nonlethal (but can be deadly in the wrong hands). Any weapon can be deady if misused. There should be guidelines and training. I’ve taken some bad shocks, having worked with electricity and electronics, and it can hurt like hell. Even so, if it was a choice between getting zapped or getting shot, I’d pick the Tazer - the survival rate is a lot higher.
I shouldn’t judge because I personally don’t know what it feels like to be hit with a tazer. Still it seems like the alternative are worse. Billy clubs bruise and guns kill. Tazers have been known to cause burn marks and small bruises at the point of contact along with diabling pain. But they are effective. Asailants are stopped and unable to harm officers, bystanders or themselves. The pain itself goes away in usually no more than half an hour. I can see why people are afraid of them, but the alternatives are worse.
I have also heard about cases where people are tramuatized by tazer usage. One specifically was a young man being arrested for drug charges who was tazered several times unnessisarily. He had nightmares about the encounter and became a recluse. The message is moderation. Tazers are a non lethal weapon, but still a weapon and should be treated as such.
Then what do you do if a child/elderly/disabled is threatening to do something violent? If they are carrying a knife or something else equally nasty, dropping them with a taser is still probably the best way to deal with the situation.
I’m not suggesting that rules shouldn’t be developed, just saying that you need to be careful how they are phrased.
PS I’m paraplegic, but I’m quite capable of swinging a knife, club, etc., and if I was a little less lazy and bothered to work out I might even be able to put up a pretty fair struggle. 
The argument that people are making is that the makers of the Taser devices have sold them as being totally benign and that police are using them in situations where neither billyclubs or handcuffs would be appropriate, as if they were phasers set on stun.
In any case where the use of lethal force is necessary no ones denies that a Taser, if effective, is a more humane choice. The question is, are police using Tasers when the safety of themselves or others is not at risk?
There has been a debate for a long time about the use of ‘non-lethal’ techniques. Tasers are just one. Rubber bullets, water cannon, sprays that tangle people up in goo, etc.
The argument against these is that when the police have tools available that are almost certainly not going to kill someone, they are going to abuse them. Some opponents of these devices suggest that it makes police more likely to break up demonstrations and in general abuse the citizenry.
I think there’s a point there, but I’m not sure it’s a good enough point to warrant getting rid of effective non-lethal devices.